25 June 2007

Bill O'Reilly Speaks At National Society Of Newspaper Columnists Conference

TRUTH TO PAPER

At Media Conference, O'Reilly Takes No Prisoners

Somehow managing to avoid drowning in their venom, Bill O'Reilly took on a room full of hostile mainstream media types, speaking Truth To Paper (to borrow one of the left's most obnoxious slogans) at an industry convention held in Philadelphia.

Knowing full well that most of the attendees were bitter enemies, O'Reilly went on the offensive. Because of his schedule, some of his appearance was apparently done by telephone.

WHILE Bill O'Reilly saw a lot of homeless during his half-hour stroll around Center City Thursday night, the Fox News Channel talk host was glad that "when you wave them off, they don't curse at you like in San Francisco."

O'Reilly was in town to deliver the keynote address for the annual National Society of Newspaper Columnists conference, headquartered at the Sofitel. Friday morning, the confrontational TV/radio host greeted a roomful of columnists who he was sure already had negative opinions about him. Judging by crowd reaction and later comments about his address, he was right.

O'Reilly, who has written for newspapers since 1974, spoke about what he sees as a liberal bias in mainstream media and suggested that ideology has caused readers to abandon papers.

O'Reilly ran out of the Sofitel to head back to New York, but was able to speak by phone from the New Jersey Turnpike. We asked why he doesn't consider "The O'Reilly Factor," which has 10 million viewers nightly, part of the mainstream media he criticizes.

"We look at ourselves as renegades, mavericks," he said of the "Factor" and Fox News' "traditionalist" perspective toward news.

O'Reilly's point about newspaper readership is frankly dead- on and it's something the print media needs to accept. The excuses they use for declining circulation have grown tiresome.

There's no reason a quality publication, without the rampant bias, can't grow along with its Internet counterpart (where readers often go for blogs, message boards and other non- news sections). First, these guys will have to come clean and admit to the problem.

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.Or, if you would prefer, please contribute at the Honor System box in the upper right corner. Thanks again!

22 Comments:

Pathetic hackery:O'Reilly's point about newspaper readership is frankly dead- on and it's something the print media needs to accept. The excuses they use for declining circulation have grown tiresome.

MMMMMM. he is wrong on everything, first America is not conservative, so nobody is pissed at the imaginary "liberal bias" in newspapers, if anything people are sick of hacks like Judy Miller writting right wing lies in a respectable paper.... plusevery public opinion shows America leans towards the left on Almost every issue.

Second, newspapers are available online FOR FREE, , think that does not effect their circulation? Only a drooling mongoloid would not take the free availability of every single newspaper online into accountability, ohh yeah that's right this is O'riley's views, si yeah a drooling mongoloid

Just for the fun of it, lets laugh at the survey of reporters giving to Democrats ,that cons are falling over about, so they concluded 140 reporters gave to Democrats, that would be 1/10th of 1 % of all reporters giving to the Democratic party..

Brian-- You should really do some research. Perhaps start with Wall Street media analysts, who attribute newspaper circulation dips to Internet cannibalization of their ad revenue (particularly classified/real estate/help wanted ads). This is a structural business problem, not an editorial bias problem.

that is wht these degenerate, mentally deranged party over country freaks actuall think,

The internet has made NO impact!!!!!!!!

Lib media!!!!!!!!! Americans are fed up with lib media!!!!!!

nobody uses the internet to read newspapers

this is what you must think to be a Republican today!!!

fuc*ing sick, these people are sick

This is their argument, not mine

nobody reads the internet, Americans are outraged at the liberal bias !!!!! you wonder why only 32% of this nation are still registered Republicans???? Who wants to be associaited with delusional crack pots???

ashI speak the truth, closet cases like PCD chose to ignore the truth.

NEWSPAPER CIRCULATION HAS DROPPED DUE TO THE FREE AVAILABLITLY ON LINE

only a retarded person would disagree and believe Oriley, if Oriley is correct, than why is the NY post at ther lowest level of all time? That is a right wing paper, sits on the shelf at the stores, NOBODY is BUYING the PAPER, they read it ONLINE, same goes for WSJ, NOBODY buys the WSJ at the newsstand, they see it online.

Cons are mentally sick little degenerates, terrifed of logic, they actually shit their pants, when they read my posts, because every single day, I set them straight, from the delusional hazy world they live in, induced by liars like O'riley, Levin, limbaugh etc. etc.

PCD is so twisted, he actually thinks thee is a huge population not buying the Times because it has "liberal bias". This is how f*cking sick, warped and mentally ill CONS really are. Savage projected when he called "libs mentally ill"........ Cons are insane tin-foil hat maniacs. People are reading the F*c*ing newspapers ONLINE, both Americans and conservatives (can't call them Americans they no longer act like they are).... I have not bought the NY Times, since 1997, and I read it everyday, my boss (at my job) has not bought the WSJ in YEARS, all of it is ONLINE, FOR FREE..

only a retard would actually think non-existant "lib bias" is why newspaper circulation is down. Absolutle garbage, Bill O'riley is full of S*it.

& on to the survey about the media which cons are jumoping each others bones in celebration about. I heard there was a big gay conservative orgy at the bath house last night in celebraton about the "lib media servey".

The conclusion of the survey 143 out of over 100,0000 reporters contributed to Democrats.... to put that in perspective that is less than 1/10th of 1%.......

This is the servey that cons are circle jerking over!!!!

1/10th of 1% of all reporters give to Democratic party!!! proof of a liberal media!!!!!!!

I'm not lying I read the small print at the bottom of the MSNBC servey... Cons did not read the bottom, they let Bill Oriley and Brian Maloney decide for them

HACKS

Another fine con abuse session !! I love it, bring it on 21%ers, I have and will continue to debunk every last piece of feces you fling

Lib media!!! waa!! lib media!!! waa!! lib media!! waaaa waaa waaa!!!

irrelevant, cry babies............

Prove me wrong......on any of this.............

Still I have never been proven wrong by a RNC party over country , pundit over reality HACK,

AAR is still setting records. They're down to 0.5 in the latest ratings. WLIB, which used to carry AAR, is now beating them after switching to Gospel. That Stephen Green guy sure has made a difference!

BF:times select is a paid service which lets you reasd a few op-eds mainly paul Krugman, "the liberal", you can receive the rest of the paper 100% for free.........

Do you not suppose newspaper sales have dropped because of internet availability??

especially with the NYT, a bulks huge paper, now with the "internets", you do not have to carry a bulky paper, be hassled with recycling it either, it is all online, with the exception of "times select" which I believe is exclusivr to the paid customers on line. The rest of the paper is free online........

Logic anc ommon sense would tell you, this is why papers are lacking the paid customers they once had at the news stand and subscriptions. Not because of Bill O'riley's tin foil hat conspiracy that people are out-raged over "lib media". Anyone who argees with him, most likely never EVER opened the NY Times, because if they did, they would see the only thing "liberal" is a columist or 2. So yeah, Bill Oriley is a hack, and it is astonising he has a media job. He has no credibility, no idea what he is talking about, is vile and rude and one has to speculate of most of these right wingers go their jobs by serviceing sexually a network executive. Why does the media insist on hiring no talent, liars and hacks? Glen Beck perfect example as is Bill Oriley

The right-wing media has been very successful in perpetuating a myth of liberal media bias.

The Center for American Progress recently published a thorough report that showed the exact opposite of what Maloney, O'Reilly and so many others claim about the 'liberal media'. The report shows that 91% of news/talk radio is very obviously conservative in orientation.

I'm sure those who believe the liberal-media-bias myth will point out that the CAP is not unbiased itself and therefore cannot be trusted. Maybe it is, but the report is a thorough data-driven exercise and, frankly, I'll take that over hearsay or individual opinion any day of the week.

Furthermore, speaking as someone who works in the industry, it is quite obvious looking at the blend of formats among the top-rated broadcasters that conservative bias is far mroe prevalent that liberal. You'd have to be an idiot to not see it.

and as far as WWRL's .5 12+ rating, first the 12+ means nothing...... WABC looks like they have ratings, but when you obtain the demographics, WABC has 1 shares in the demos under 55+ categories, meaning Wabc's strong point is a listeners over 55, so 12+ means nothing......I would like to see the demo breakdown for WWRL. Im sure the morning show has under a .1 share (and its a non AAR program) Im sure the replay of the morning show has zero ratings and the new addition of Alan Colmbs has a zero rating as well as the infomercials.

1600 only broadcasts 11 hours a day of AAR. I wonder what the ratings look like for noon-6PM. One more factor after 7PM, the station drops their power so low, you can barely hear the station.So no WWRL's rating is no indication that progressive tak does not work. More crap for those who do not understand radio. If Levin, Savage and Hannity were on a station with morning show with no listeners, a replay of a morning show with no listeners a low power frequency and info-commercials, they would score a .5 as well. In many markets Hannity gets lower than a .5, same for the pig man, less than a .5 in many markets. Everytime the full ratings leak, AAR looks a little better than the 12+ would lead you to believe and right wing radio looks horrible with their 55+ audience. Again the last time I saw the full ratings, recently, WABC scores a 1 share with listeners under 55FACT

The report shows that 91% of news/talk radio is very obviously conservative in orientation.

Well, of course that's true, given that conservative talk radio brings the ratings, or at least the ad revenue. But to compare that report with people's perceptions of how news is presented on TV and in papers is comparing apples to oranges.

(Who gets their news from radio? I can't imagine too many people glued to 1010 WINS for an afternoon...but I can certainly picture them tuning in to find out if the Triborough Bridge is backed up at 5:00.)

MoP,

Of course, the internet has affected newspaper circulation.

Lots of newspapers are on life support, or will be within just a few years. I know for a fact that my local paper artificially inflates its numbers by occasionally throwing papers to people who don't subscribe. (This is ostensibly to get them to subscribe, but mostly it's to get the numbers higher.)

For that matter, the internet has also fueled the calls of bias from both sides, as now people from whatever watchdog group watch programs just to find something scandalous to throw up (all meanings intended) on a website in the hopes of stirring up hysteria (not the Def Leppard type) among their followers. But I digress.

Of course, there are other factors affecting circulation numbers, such as a multitude of 24-hour news channels, be they national or local.

With that said:

you wonder why only 32% of this nation are still registered Republicans????

Please provide a source for this. Sure, that's the president's approval rating at the moment, but I don't seem to recall having to like everything about George W. Bush to maintain my registration.

Actually, that number just might be true after all. There are certainly enough people who don't care enough about the future of this country (unless it involves Paris, Lindsay, or Britney) to register to vote at all.

I guess you do not understand how radio works. WWRL has a listenerless morning show unaffiliated with Air America. WWRL replays the same listenerless morning show, WWRL, plays infomercials most of the weekend, WWRL drops their power so low in the evenings you can not even hear the station in it's proper listening area....

The same thing happens to conservative talkers on low power stations. They score .3-.6 ratings. You will never have more than a .8 12+ on a station you can not hear. BF, does not understand demographics either, last time we saw the demographics, certain day parts had good ratings, Rhodes practically has more 18-35 listenrs than Hannity (winter book 06)

Becides AAR is not the "liberal" station it once was. They are not in the business of an entire liberal network any longer, most AAR affiliates pick and chose the shows they want.

Cons, seem to miss the point, AAR is no longer a "liberal network", they are a syndicator of talk shows, most progressive leaning.. Lionel, while I do not detest him as Hash does, is not "lib talk", but rather just plain old "talk". I don't consider him a con, but he is far from a liberal talk show host. WWRL's ratings mean nothing to AAR as a whole, as they like most AAR affiliates run 11 hours or less of AAR. They are no longer a "liberal network", they syndicate shows, just like citadel, infinity, Talk radio network (savage) and others.

So looking at a .5 for a station that mostly runs NON AAR programming is stupid, and shows exactly how ignorant you are on the topic. 24 hours in a day, 11 hours for AAR, 13 hours non-AAR. so what is your point becides WWRL is a low power station with poor programming outside of Hartman and Rhodes?

AAR should be looked at as individal programs at this point, and Randi Rhodes is a success, she has more affiliates than the rest of the line-up. Several right wing leaning talk stations pick her up.

BF, you miss the boat on this one.

same for Maloney, if you want to analyse AAR, look at individual shows, this is now their business.